Comments on: The Failure of the Kalam Cosmological Argument http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/ Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: carneadesofga http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1532 carneadesofga Thu, 20 May 2010 01:31:58 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-1532 I read earlier today that that sophist W.L.C. grants the possibility of polytheism but the Razor would eliminate that as many gods would violate it. No, it's not the number of entities but rather the ad hocness of God -period- that stakes itself.<br> One Scott Sullivan has a well-developed argumentation in its favor. I read earlier today that that sophist W.L.C. grants the possibility of polytheism but the Razor would eliminate that as many gods would violate it. No, it's not the number of entities but rather the ad hocness of God -period- that stakes itself.
One Scott Sullivan has a well-developed argumentation in its favor.

]]> By: carneadesofga http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1504 carneadesofga Wed, 19 May 2010 20:31:58 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-1504 I read earlier today that that sophist W.L.C. grants the possibility of polytheism but the Razor would eliminate that as many gods would violate it. No, it's not the number of entities but rather the ad hocness of God -period- that stakes itself.<br> One Scott Sullivan has a well-developed argumentation in its favor. I read earlier today that that sophist W.L.C. grants the possibility of polytheism but the Razor would eliminate that as many gods would violate it. No, it's not the number of entities but rather the ad hocness of God -period- that stakes itself.
One Scott Sullivan has a well-developed argumentation in its favor.

]]> By: lord griggs1947 http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-202 lord griggs1947 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:09:05 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-202 Craig begs the question of a starting point.He os one of th etop guns of philosoph of religion and theology and the Bibllle. Craig begs the question of a starting point.He os one of th etop guns of philosoph of religion and theology and the Bibllle.

]]> By: lord griggs1947 http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-9832 lord griggs1947 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:09:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-9832 Craig begs the question of a starting point.He os one of th etop guns of philosoph of religion and theology and the Bibllle. Craig begs the question of a starting point.He os one of th etop guns of philosoph of religion and theology and the Bibllle.

]]> By: Why Cosmological Arguments For God Actually Disprove His Existence | Urban Philosophy http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-155 Why Cosmological Arguments For God Actually Disprove His Existence | Urban Philosophy Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:36:26 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-155 [...] Response to Bolt’s MisunderstandingThe Failure of the Kalam Cosmological ArgumentInductive Reasoning and the Christian [...] [...] Response to Bolt’s MisunderstandingThe Failure of the Kalam Cosmological ArgumentInductive Reasoning and the Christian [...]

]]> By: americankhatru http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-112 americankhatru Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:33:01 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-112 Do you think its sound to say that the Kalam assumes the A-theory of time is true? Also can anyone tell me anything that "began to exist"? Do you think its sound to say that the Kalam assumes the A-theory of time is true?
Also can anyone tell me anything that “began to exist”?

]]> By: americankhatru http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-9831 americankhatru Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:33:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-9831 Do you think its sound to say that the Kalam assumes the A-theory of time is true? Also can anyone tell me anything that "began to exist"? Do you think its sound to say that the Kalam assumes the A-theory of time is true?
Also can anyone tell me anything that “began to exist”?

]]> By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-69 MitchLeBlanc Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:01:56 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-69 @ProoF: Firstly, that argument isn't sound. Secondly, it does not address the issue that the creator MUST (logically) be greater than the creation. You may not say: The creator of the Universe MUST be greater than the Universe because God is greater than the Universe. If Craig were to say that, he would be jumping the gun a bit. He first has to establish that the Universe was indeed created, and then further establish that it was by a being greater than the Universe. He assumes the last part, and he should not. @ProoF:

Firstly, that argument isn’t sound. Secondly, it does not address the issue that the creator MUST (logically) be greater than the creation.

You may not say: The creator of the Universe MUST be greater than the Universe because God is greater than the Universe.

If Craig were to say that, he would be jumping the gun a bit. He first has to establish that the Universe was indeed created, and then further establish that it was by a being greater than the Universe. He assumes the last part, and he should not.

]]> By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-9830 MitchLeBlanc Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:01:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-9830 @ProoF: Firstly, that argument isn't sound. Secondly, it does not address the issue that the creator MUST (logically) be greater than the creation. You may not say: The creator of the Universe MUST be greater than the Universe because God is greater than the Universe. If Craig were to say that, he would be jumping the gun a bit. He first has to establish that the Universe was indeed created, and then further establish that it was by a being greater than the Universe. He assumes the last part, and he should not. @ProoF:

Firstly, that argument isn’t sound. Secondly, it does not address the issue that the creator MUST (logically) be greater than the creation.

You may not say: The creator of the Universe MUST be greater than the Universe because God is greater than the Universe.

If Craig were to say that, he would be jumping the gun a bit. He first has to establish that the Universe was indeed created, and then further establish that it was by a being greater than the Universe. He assumes the last part, and he should not.

]]> By: ProoF http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-68 ProoF Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:40:28 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=285#comment-68 "Can you provide a logical principle that suggests so?" - Mitch The only thing I can think of right now is that by definition, God is the greatest conceivable being ever. If there was something greater than He is. Then that would be considered God. Is there anything else that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Are the properties of the universe greater than God? I would have to say that Craig says God has to be greater, because of the attributes of God. “Can you provide a logical principle that suggests so?” – Mitch

The only thing I can think of right now is that by definition, God is the greatest conceivable being ever.

If there was something greater than He is. Then that would be considered God.

Is there anything else that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Are the properties of the universe greater than God?

I would have to say that Craig says God has to be greater, because of the attributes of God.

]]>